you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I sometimes use claud to review texts. No matter what you give it, it always says: this is good, this could use improvement. If you change the part that “could use improvement”, it is never satisfied. It wil always give new points that should be improved. Even worse, if you give it the same text twice with a slighty different prompt or more context, it will give different points that are good or could use improvement. Sometimes it even says something that had to be changed before is now suddenly the strongest sentence — load bearing even.

Clearly they instructed Claude to always give points to improve regardless of if the text is good enough for its purpose. It is useful as a grammar and spelling check, and for validating that the content makes broad sense, but definitely not intelligent.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago

    Clearly they instructed Claude to always give points to improve regardless of if the text is good enough for its purpose

    It's worse than that. It's just a word prediction algorithm. When you ask someone for advice, it's very common to say "this part could use improvement" so that's what AI is going to say to you. It doesn't matter if you feed it a text to a friend, or your Knuckles the Echidna x Naruto fanfiction, or The Left Hand of Darkness, it's always going to respond the same way. It's not critiquing anything, it's simply imitating critique.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago

    The only way these tools are useful is if you use it skeptically and word it with specific goals, like "What assumptions would a reader make using this text?" or "Write a summary of each section, identify which portions are most similar and list then at the end separately" after which you're free to decide if your text is good to go or not

    It's shit for creativity, reading it is saddening

  • source
  • parent